Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.machinerytransportquotes

Submit an ENQUIRY to human providers (two steps; not a purchase)

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Machinery Transport Quotes — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. Step 1: call with the answers (keyed by field key from enquiry_fields) and consent=true; it validates and returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token — show the person the summary and the consent line. Step 2: only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token; the enquiry is then submitted, and the person receives an email with a link they must click before any provider sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "Happy for my details to go to plant and machinery transport operators, who'll quote the move directly."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to plant and machinery transport operators, who'll quote the move directly.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It explains the two-step call sequence, that consent is mandatory, that an email link must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This is far beyond what the schema alone conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but each sentence earns its place by communicating a required behavioral constraint or step. The 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' structure aids readability, though the length is somewhat high; the duplication of the consent text from the schema is the main minor redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the two-step flow, nested answers object, and absence of an output schema, the description provides complete context for correct invocation. It explains what step 1 returns, what to show the person, what token to carry forward, and the post-submission email-link requirement. Nothing needed for correct usage is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent uses an exact quoted statement, and that confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This contextualizes the parameters beyond their raw schema definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Machinery Transport Quotes') and clearly distinguishes this from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is front-loaded in the title and description, making the tool's purpose unmistakable next to its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives detailed usage conditions: step 1 is for validation and getting a confirmation token, step 2 is only for final submission after the person agrees. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields, but the process guidance is clear enough that an agent would know when to call it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All site toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no functional overlap between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and revolve around 'enquiry', but the pattern is inconsistent: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-led while submit_enquiry is verb-led. The names are still readable and related, but they do not follow a single verb_noun convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a single enquiry submission workflow: orientation, schema, and submission. Each tool earns its place and none feels redundant or missing.

Completeness5/5

The toolkit covers the full task lifecycle: understanding the process, inspecting required fields, validating, submitting, and handling the two-step confirmation. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated purpose.

Resources